# In the matter of Nirmal Singh & Ors. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others.

> HC judgment dated 2024-02-29. Citation: TCN-2024-HC-00121. A consortium of companies, including M/s Pebbles Infosoftech Pvt. Ltd. as the lead member, was…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 29 Feb 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-HC-00121
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/nirmal-singh-ors-vs-state-of-up-and-4-others-81d0a66b

## Summary

### Background

A consortium of companies, including M/s Pebbles Infosoftech Pvt. Ltd. as the lead member, was allotted land in GH01 Sector 107 Noida by the Noida Authority to develop a residential project. They formed a special purpose company, M/s Hacienda Projects Private Limited (HPPL), for the project's execution. HPPL launched the 'Lotus 300' project, promising 300 apartments. They collected Rs. 636 crores from homebuyers but diverted Rs. 190 crores to other companies owned by the promoters. The builders also sold 27,941.95 square meters of land for Rs. 236 crores without flat buyers' consent. The project was delayed, and the promoters, including Nirmal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri, and Vidur Bhardwaj, resigned from HPPL. Homebuyers filed an FIR alleging cheating, and the

…

## Facts

The Noida Authority allotted land to a consortium of companies, with M/s Pebbles Infosoftech Pvt. Ltd. as the lead member, to develop a residential project named 'Lotus 300' under M/s Hacienda Projects Private Limited (HPPL). The promoters, Nirmal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri, and Vidur Bhardwaj, collected Rs. 636 crores from homebuyers but diverted Rs. 190 crores to other companies they owned. They also sold 27,941.95 square meters of land for Rs. 236 crores without the consent of the flat buyers. The project was delayed, and the promoters resigned from HPPL. Homebuyers filed an FIR alleging cheating, leading to the promoters' arrest. They signed an MOU to complete the project but failed to honor it. The Noida Authority issued recovery notices for unpaid dues of Rs.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the promoters of HPPL can be held liable for the company's dues and fraudulent activities …

**Ratio:** The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil allows the court to disregard the separate

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the promoters, even after resigning, continued to control the

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted that the promoters' actions constituted a deliberate

…

**Application:** The court applied the principle of piercing the corporate veil to hold the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Mahesh Chandra…; Prashant…
- **Appellants:** Nirmal…
- **Respondents:** Hacienda Projects…; State Of…
- **Other parties:** Kohi…

## Timeline

- **2010-01-01 — Land Allo…**: Noida Authority allotted land to M/s…
- **2010-03-31 — Lease Deed Ex…**: Noida Authority executed a lease deed with M/s…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 — Moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-14)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/nirmal-singh-ors-vs-state-of-up-and-4-others-81d0a66b